Talk:Prairie Dawn Through the Years
Um... Is this page really neccessary? I mean, wasn't it previously deleted by Henrik, and considering Prarie Dawn is just a Hot Pink AM, would that realyl count as a "Through the years" article? Wattamack4 02:37, February 11, 2010 (UTC)Alex :Yeah, I'm kinda with Alex on this one. Like he said, Prairie Dawn's a Hot Pink AM. So, her design changes practically year after year. I don't really see the point.-- Jon (talk) 02:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::But if she's an established character who's been around since 1970, and she's changed a few times, I don't see why we would treat her any differently than any other character who has a similar "Through the Years" page. -- Ken (talk) 02:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree with Ken. She's a pretty established and notable character and deserves it. ---- Jesse (talk) 02:52, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, I can understand that. Not to mention too that Prairie's gone through different clothing changes and hair styles, like girls often do. It's not some other AM like The Count, whereas he's been wearing the same outfit for the 38 years he's been around. -- Jon (talk) 02:58, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::She may be based on the hot pink AM but she is in no way used like an AM; she's a well-established character. And she looks very different now than she used to. I agree she deserves her page. -- Wendy (talk) 03:01, February 11, 2010 (UTC) A few things for the record, since this is really a broader issue. This was what was deleted previously (by Scott): "She started out a very small, quiet Muppet, then developed." There was also a version way back in 2006, which way back pretty much just said that her voice and bow changed. Also, here's a discussion from a year ago which attempted to set some guidelines but was never really followed through (and a few have improved in that time), though Floyd Pepper Through the Years is still fairly weak (and it doesn't help that some of the changes, as noted in a stalled talk page question, seem to be a question of perception. This is actually slightly better than that, though still somewhat focused on wardrobe and hair. As Wendy noted, and just as with other characters who become major enough, they're no longer AM's but rebuilt as their own permanent puppets (so it's not a question of features or anything being taken off a utility puppet and any changes simply being the result of that), and in particular, the two images from the more recent seasons show some reasonably significant changes in the puppet's general design and coloring, beyond hair and dress. I'm going to ask Danny and Scott to weigh in on this when they have a chance. I'm kind of on the fence, but one entry has no notes at all, the second one is a huge leap and makes odd claims (like stating her head has shrunk when it seems mostly to be a result of the first picture's pose, or that her dress is somehow indicative of "the future" and not something that had been established for awhile by then), and there's claims like this: "Her bangs are now less in her eyes." Really, at this point, it's clear why the likes of Kermit, Fozzie, Gonzo, Big Bird, Bert and Ernie etc. have their own pages, as major leading characters with many major changes over the years (including some more recently) most of which aren't really a matter of subjective opinion about hair or coloring. Prairie and some of the others are middling and at this point I actually see no reason why they couldn't just be addressed in a gallery on her page or in caption notes, and in some cases, as I indicated, the pictures themselves would be preferable to odd, forced, or obvious comments. Gobo Fraggle Through the Years in fact was already partially merged but not redirected (since it also includes one age variant Gobo as a child, but since that's just a costume change and not a differnt puppet, it could be addressed in the gallery too). So really it's a question of how to approach some of these pages in general, not just Prairie (since if we do decide to do a clean-up, there are worse offenders; since Gobo is repetitious though and already pretty much agreed upon in several old discussions, just not acted on, I'm going to go ahead and fix that one). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:57, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :In fact, I just looked more closely at Prairie Dawn and realized almost every image on this page is already there, a couple wth notes, some without, so yeah, this page is entirely redundant. The only picture not there is File:Ruby.jpg, which doesn't really show much anyway. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :: I think that some of the information here is interesting to note -- there are at least a couple of interesting changes to the Prairie Dawn puppet. There are three major pictures here that I think are different enough to look interesting -- the first one (ca. 1970s), the Sesame Street Jam one (1993) and the last one (2008). The differences in the shape of her face and body are subtle, but you can see immediately that something's changed from one picture to the next. :: That being said, I'd like to consider merging all of the Through the Years pages onto the corresponding character pages, as a gallery on the page. For example, the Big Bird page isn't really that long -- we could easily include a gallery version of Big Bird Through the Years, and it would be a nice extra feature on that page. Ditto Kermit, Piggy, Ernie, etc. :: If we do that, then we won't have to keep going through this process of figuring out who "deserves" a Through the Years page and who doesn't -- and we can encourage contributors to work instead on developing the character's actual page. What do you think? -- Danny (talk) 22:37, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::: For some weird reason, I'll miss the TTY pages (despite the gallery suggestion), but I'm for it. ---- Jesse (talk) 22:39, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::: Then again, it's now using new images, so... ---- Jesse (talk) 22:57, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I agree with Danny. Webkinz Mania says 23:00, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::: The new images don't really change the issue, though (especially since most of them are posers anyway), and they could still be merged easily. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:34, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: Touche. Now I can officially say that I vote to merge them. ---- Jesse (talk) 23:38, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, I'm okay with merging the Through the Years pages into the characters' main articles, as long as we have it somewhere. I like having all the pictures in one place, and if we decide that some aren't actually major changes, we can just make it into a gallery of general pictures or something. -- Ken (talk) 02:44, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::What can I say? Ya got my vote! :::::::::I actually think it would be kinda cool seeing a TTY gallery on characters' pages. They can go under the behind the scenes/origin section, or at the end of it. I'm halfway finished with my "Origin" content for the Big Bird page, and the gallery can be put right at the end of that.-- Jon (talk) 03:52, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Hey all. I created this page and am sorry for any bad things, confusions or feeling that it is not necessary. i just thought it was interesting to see how the tiny little Prairie AM puppet blossomed into a main character who is much more outgoing and exubreant than when she first started. If you feel it is necessary to delete it, by all means, do so. -- Wes (Wes 10:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :Hi, Wes! No worries, your page just hit on what has been a wider issue for some time now. I like your comment that Prairie "a main character who is much more outgoing and exubreant than when she first started," but that's not something that has much to do with the puppet itself, but with the character. So definitely feel free to add any details or other images you find directly to Prairie Dawn. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:39, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm all for combing these pages into their respected character pages. - Oscarfan 21:05, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::I'll jump on the bandwagon too. I think it's a great idea to add them to the individual characters pages. It's much easier for the casual reader to find then to have to go to another page to discover it. -- ''Nate (talk) 21:23, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sounds good to me too. Wattamack4 22:39, February 12, 2010 (UTC)Alex